Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

At around 20:40 on December 24, 2017, the Defendant expressed a desire to ask the police officers belonging to the Busan Dong Police Station C unit of the police station in Busan, who called upon 112 to ask the Defendant questions about the circumstances in which the Defendant was faced with the Defendant’s face, and as the Defendant was expelled from the police officer called upon upon 112 on December 24, 2017, the Defendant was at the seat of the Defendant, and the Defendant was at the seat of the police officer called upon d (hereinafter referred to as the “D border”), and the Defendant was at the seat of the police officer called upon d (hereinafter referred to as the “D border”).

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the protection of the lives, bodies and property of the police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the statement protocol to D police stations;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 136 of the choice of punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Although the act of cutting down a police officer’s title in the course of performing official duties for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, the act of a police officer in the course of performing official duties in the instant case is not easy, considering Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the fact that the police officer himself/herself was the object of protection, the complete and pure meaning of the defendant’s body protection, the fact that the defendant was the first offender of the complete and pure meaning, the defendant was suffering from an injury with his/her draft at the time, and that the defendant’s horse was lost at the time of the defendant’s horse, and that it can be sufficiently inferred that there was no light.